NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-20427
Robert A. Franden,
Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Chicago, Rock Island and
Pacific Railroad Company:
Carrier pay to Signal Maintainer R. W.
Hafley additional
time
equal to 5-9/12 hours' overtime for service which he
performed on
May 4,
1972, in connection with Carrier's scheduled construction and maintenance
program. (Carrier's File: L-130-501; General Chairman's File: AV-H-126)
OPINION OF BOARD: In connection with the renovation of a crossing in
East Moline, Illinois Claimant Signal Maintainer worked
5 9/12 hours past his regular quitting time in order to complete the necessary signal work. It is th
overtime. The Carrier takes the position that overtime necessary to complete
work commenced during regular hours is not compensable under Rule 62.
"RULE 62. MONTHLY RATED SIGNAL ITAINTAINERS: Employes
assigned to the maintenance of a territory or plant will be
paid on a monthly basis; except maintainers where more than
one shift is assigned on a maintenance territory, maintainers
assigned to a maintenance territory within the limits of an
interlocker, and maintainers assigned to a maintenance territory of not to exceed 10 miles; such pos
monthly or hourly rated.
Such employee shall be paid not less than the minimum monthly
basic hourly rate as shown in Rule 61, established for the
corresponding class of employees coming under the provisions of
this agreement, which shall be determined by dividing the monthly
rate by two hundred eleven and two-thirds (211-2/3) hours. Employees will be paid actual necessary e
headquarters.
No overtime is allowed for time worked in excess of eight (8)
hours per day on the regularly assigned five (5) days per week
the employee is scheduled to work, nor on the first scheduled
rest day (6th day) of the work week or holidays; on the other
hand, no time is to be deducted unless the employee lays off
on his own accord.
Award Number 20759 Page 2
Docket Number SG-20427
On the regularly assigned five (5) days per week the
employee is scheduled to work, ordinary Maintenance and
Construction work will not be required outside of their
bulletined assigned hours. This does not apply to such
travel time or work a Maintainer might run into when in
completing a certain job worked on, during the day he might
leave his headquarters or return thereto outside his regular
assigned hours.
Monthly rated employees will have Sunday as assigned rest
day, if possible. For service performed on assigned rest
day, rules applicable to other employees of the same class
shall apply as provided in Rules 17 and 18.
Such monthly rated employees will not be required to perform
ordinary maintenance or construction on the sixth day of the
work week nor on recognized holidays. For such service rules
applicable to other employees of the same class shall apply
as provided in Rules 17 and 18. Only emergency service may
be required on such sixth day, which will be the service necessary to restore the signal system to s
Employees covered by this rule who are required by the Carrier
to perform work outside the limits of their territory outside
the assigned hours of their work week will be compensated for
such service under the rules applicable to other employees of
the same class as provided in Rules 17 and 18. However, this
paragraph shall not apply to Foremen working under Rule 81(d)."
The position of the Claimant is that the work performed was ordinary
maintenance and construction work as contemplated in the first sentence of
the fourth paragraph of the Rule. The Carrier contends that the work falls
into the category of work "run into" as contemplated by the second sentence
of the fourth paragraph of Rule 62.
The Carrier has cited two Awards dealing with the same parties and
the same rule. Both of those Awards (20208 and 20610 which cites 20208 with
approval) found that the work in question was not ordinary maintenance and
construction work but work run into which was not compensable as overtime.
Award 20208 deals with a situation where the work in question
would have been completed during regular hours had the switch machine which
was installed operated properly. As a result of it not working properly the
work in question had to be performed after regular hours. We believe this
case points out an essential element of work "run into". That is, there
must be a certain unexpectedness to the necessity of having to have the work
performed after regular hours.
Award Number 20759 Page 3
Docket Number SG-20427
In Award 20208 we said "We are mindful that the nature of the
fourth paragraph of Rule 62 is such that it could possibly be misused by
the Carrier. We are also mindful that, in this case, a lengthy period was
required to perform the work "run into" in completing a certain job. For
these reasons we have studied the facts closely. We note though, that the
Employes did not dispute that the work would have been completed within
regular hours if all had gone well. Nor did the Employes contend that the
Carrier could have foreseen the malfunctioning of the switch machine, that
the Carrier had any knowledge about the machine's defects which would have
relieved Claimant of the duty to complete the job, or that the iob could
have gone over until the next day." (emphasis supplied)
Ordinary maintenance and construction that was begun during regular hours and then continued aft
that the work performed after regular hours was "run into". The wording of
the rule is "This does not apply to work a Maintainer might run into
when completing a certain job worked on
"
The words "might run into"
suggest a happenstance rather than the performance of work which is part
of regularly scheduled maintenarce or construction. The happenstance may
be either in the nature of the work performed or the time during which it
is performed as was the case in Award 20208. The construction suggested
by the Carrier would permit the Carrier to commence maintenance or construc
tion work toward the end of a shift and work the employes after regular
hours to complete the project without becoming liable for overtime.
In the instant matter there is nothing to suggest that the work
in question was not easily forseeable both
it
its nature and time necessary
performance. It was ordinary maintenance or construction work as contemplated by paragraph 4 of Rule
to be performed outside of bulletined assigned hours.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole
record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are
respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor
Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment BoarJ has jurisdiction over
the dispute involved herein; and
Award Number 20759 Page 4
Docket Number SG-20427
That the Agreement was violated.
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
"Executive ecretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of July 1975.
I